When participants were asked how an offender could expiate the CIN all participants responded that the offender was able to pay the prescribed financial penalty, failing to acknowledge the CES as an option. Participants’ failure to mention the education alternative may indicate that the CIN is being incorrectly implemented by police on the streets.
Collectively, participants demonstrated limited or no knowledge about the CES. Participants indicated they would notify the offender of two expiation options: pay the fine or contest the notice in court. The option to attend and complete a CES was not mentioned to offenders. This omission means that offenders never become aware of the education alternative. This issue is well illustrated in the narrative of one participant below, describing how he/she would issue a hypothetical CIN:
These are illegal drugs; due to the amount that you have you will be issued an infringement today. It is a Cannabis Infringement Notice and then I will go on and give them a spiel and tell them where to put their name down and the amount and what it is for. We tell them they can pay the fine or argue it.
This type of response was given by the majority of officers. For example:
I would say you are receiving a cannabis infringement notice today and it is a one hundred dollar fine. You can go to court and argue it if you want. You are receiving this because you are a first-time offender and it is only a small amount of cannabis.
One participant also stated:
The CIN scheme is for first-time offenders. We hand out a cannabis infringement notice instead of taking them to court...but all it is, is a monetary fine as though it is a driving offence. You say pay it or go to court.
These narratives demonstrate that officers regularly inform the offender to pay the fine or attend court, making no reference to the CES. This lack of police knowledge
about the CES is concerning as it contradicts the principal aim of the Cannabis
Control Act 2003. However, it may provide an explanation for data showing that the
percentage of offenders choosing to expiate the CIN through attendance and completion of a CES is very low. Therefore, the findings of this research suggest that low CES attendance rates may actually reflect the failure of officers to inform offenders about the CES. Where this occurs, offenders will not be aware of the CES as an alternative option. Police officers lack of knowledge about the CIN scheme could be attributed to a number of issues including poor education and/ or training of officers when the Cannabis Control Act 2003 was introduced; observing more senior police staff issuing a CIN incorrectly; and /or a lack of available resources or contact information for both police and minor cannabis offenders.
It is also possible that participants may have been ignorant of the benefits associated with cannabis offenders attending an education class and may have felt it was a waste of time to inform the offender of this option. As there is a growing body of literature suggesting that well tailored drug education classes can be effective in reducing or delaying the onset of drug use, this type of attitude is misguided (Midford, 2000; D. White & Pitts, 1998). Research evaluating the opinions of 200 weekly cannabis users showed that education can be an important role in counteracting barriers to treatment (Gates, Taplin, Copeland, Swift, & Martin, 2008). This accumulating evidence of the effectiveness of drug education for users needs to be relayed to police.
When talking about the CIN the majority of participants compared it to a traffic infringement. This is exemplified by the following comment:
The CIN is just like a speeding ticket really, it is like, ok, that was wrong, now pay the penalty. I don’t see it as any different.
These findings are supported by research examining the effectiveness of the IDDI in rural and remote Australia, which demonstrated that many police officers were sceptical of fines as they perceived them to reduce the seriousness of the offence, likening them to more mundane fines such as speeding tickets (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008c).
In reference to the prescribed financial penalty, the majority of officers reported that the penalty was a one hundred dollar infringement regardless of the type of cannabis offence committed. For example, one participant indicated:
The CIN scheme means minor cannabis offenders can just be dealt with by way of infringement...they have to pay a one hundred dollar fine for any offence.
However, as shown in Table 1, financial penalties vary dependent on the type of offence committed.
Table 1
Financial penalties for type of offence committed under the Cannabis Infringement Notice Scheme
Offence Financial Penalty
Possession of a smoking implement with detectable traces of cannabis
$100 Use of or possession of not more than 15 grams of cannabis $100 Use of or possession of more than 15 grams and not more
than 30 grams of cannabis
$150 Cultivation of not more than two non-hydroponically grown
cannabis plants at a person’s principal place of residence
$200
Therefore, participants demonstrated limited knowledge of the various prescribed penalties for infringements. A small number of participants did report some awareness of the CES after the researcher probed for further detail. Participants indicated they would briefly read an email about the CES and often delete it. Seven out of the ten participants did not know the CES existed. For example, one participant indicated:
It is their [the offender’s] choice, but if they choose to attend the education, then they don’t get the infringement do they? What is the education class?
Another participant indicated:
Clearly, there was some confusion about the education alternative. These findings are consistent with a growing body of international literature evidencing deficient police knowledge about drug laws. One study which surveyed 672 Thai police officers demonstrated that while officers held positive attitudes regarding drug enforcement they were not knowledgeable about the laws they were implementing. The lack of correct knowledge was attributed to the small amount of drug information and education provided by the government with only 30% of respondents indicating that they had been informed regularly about the drug laws and only 19% said they had received more than one course of drug related training in the past year. These findings demonstrate the importance of allocating more funding towards drug educational material and in service training to facilitate the effective enforcement of Thailand’s drug laws (Cheurprakobkit, Kuntee, & Denq, 1997). The findings of this research are also consistent with the findings of research conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2008c). That research demonstrated that Australian police officers had limited knowledge of the IDDI programs and limited experience in implementing drug diversions. Furthermore, police rarely confirmed they had knowledge of their local drug treatment providers, even in jurisdictions where police drug diversion programs involved diversion of the offender into assessment, treatment or education.
Within this research, officers attributed their limited knowledge about the CES to a lack of communication between key stakeholders, such as police and HealthInfo. For example, one participant indicated:
I don’t know how the education class works up here because, you know, I haven’t really dealt with any up here or talked to anyone about it. It’s never been mentioned.
Another participant indicated:
Like I said, I haven’t heard much about the education class at a local level, so I don’t know anything about it.
inability to inform offenders about particulars such as whom to contact to make a booking, the duration of the course, its location, and the benefits of attending and completing the CES. Failed relationships between police and service providers will hinder the ability to obtain feedback on diversion outcomes and the ability to determine the effectiveness of the CES. Where data are not fed back to the agency, the ability to change police perceptions that diversion is a soft option is limited (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008c). More fundamentally, if front line police are not equipped with the information required to fulfil their responsibilities appropriately, there will be limited differences in the management of offenders before and after implementation of the CIN Scheme. Such deficiencies in training reflect poorly on police and prevent offenders from being diverted to a CES, which may impact on the probability of future cannabis use.
Research has found that the approach most likely to promote a positive attitude towards police diversionary programs is one where police have observed more senior officers modelling appropriate implementation by using diversion or suggesting that diversion is a good option in suitable scenarios, particularly in regional or remote areas. Because a lack of knowledge was evident across police ranks, it is unlikely that the issue of deficient knowledge will be addressed (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008c).
Overall, the lack of knowledge displayed by participants regarding the CES has the potential to significantly undermine the program’s success through:
• The ad hoc application of the CIN scheme by individual officers;
• Offenders’ failure to attend and complete a CES, by being inappropriately informed that their only option is to pay a financial penalty;
• Actions of officers undermining the federal government policy of harm minimisation;
• Problematic evaluation of the CIN scheme programs success rate; and • Obstruction to future research.
The misunderstandings and lack of knowledge about the CIN scheme in general needs to be addressed in order to minimise the harm caused by cannabis to the user
and society, and to maintain public confidence in the Western Australian Police. If not corrected, these concerns may manifest as major problems in the future.